Today I was getting some refresh about software design patterns.
In particular I was wondering about the difference between MVC and Three-tier-layer. Basically, from what I read on wikipedia and other sources, the main difference between the two is the components interaction:
A fundamental rule in a three tier architecture is the client tier
never communicates directly with the data tier;
whilst
...the MVC architecture is triangular: the view sends updates to
the controller, the controller updates the model, and the view gets
updated directly from the model
Now: if we take the apple docs regarding this matter we see this:
And they clearify that Views and Model shouldn't communicate directly:
view objects are typically decoupled from model objects in an MVC
application
and
When a model object changes (for example, new data is received over a
network connection), it notifies a controller object, which updates
the appropriate view objects
And so on.
So, what's the matter here? Is Cocoa adopting its own idea of an MVC, regardless of the common one? Or am I missing something in the common way of seeing an MVC architecture?
While it can be said that Cocoa's version of MVC is a sort of subset of the actual definition of MVC, they are not separate entities. The Cocoa version of MVC typically revolves around the use of a View (typically an NSWindow and/or an NSView), a controller (typically an NSWindowController), and a model layer (anything from a simple array to a Core Data stack). The separation of powers in this model is clear, but where in the 'tier' structure that Wiki defines should each of these belong?
I would argue that the Controller and the View are a part of the client layer. Not only is the controller responsible for the delegation between the model and the view, but it is responsible for responding to user events and determining the correct course of action to take during non-framework error handling. By taking this approach to MVC, you can now begin to see how Cocoa does, in fact, satisfy the broader definition of the pattern.
A fundamental rule in a three tier architecture is the client tier never communicates directly with the data tier;
This one's probably the hardest to reason about of the 3, and it involves delving into what "communication" actually means in the context of the pattern. When we say communication, what we mean is that the controller has no direct involvement in the actions taken by the model. That's not to say that the controller cannot order a change in the contents of the model, but rather that the controller does not have a hand in how the model updates itself. The controller acts as a director, not an implementer, which vastly simplifies the creation of a database layer, and is one of the reasons that Core Data and SQLite3 exist as external frameworks rather than as Foundation classes.
view objects are typically decoupled from model objects in an MVC application
That brings up one of the age-old taboos when programming with the pattern: making your views too smart. The controller provides a solid barrier between the model and view, such that the controller acts as a director and a filter for content from the model layer. Without any such barrer, say a tableview, would have to ensure that every cell had a copy of the data from the database, and that each cell knew when and how to update itself when a change is propagated in another cell. In Cocoa, this is where our NSWindowControllers come in. They manage the display of a root view and act as a barrier between some model and the content of the view it manages. Though, it is important to note that the controller objects in Cocoa are view-biased, mostly because it would be nearly impossible to provide a generic outlet to any kind of model layer without quite a bit of unnecessary glue.
When a model object changes (for example, new data is received over a network connection), it notifies a controller object, which updates the appropriate view objects.
That's the way it should be, for the reasons I've laid out above. But, to build on the networking example you've given, consider this:
Given an NSOperation that fetches data, and a controller that manages a tableview, you would probably not like the controller sticking its fat fingers into the operation, nor would you like the tableview to receive raw NSData and have to spend valuable rendering time processing the result and displaying it.
And so on. So, what's the matter here? Is Cocoa adopting its own idea of an MVC, regardless of the common one? Or am I missing something in the common way of seeing an MVC architecture?
I guess the conclusion I would draw from this is that your definition of the separation of powers in MVC and in how Cocoa does it is off. Cocoa is fairly rigid about adhering to the pattern, though there is an interesting contemporary movement within the Objective-C community towards MVVM.
You are correct the MVC practiced in most cocoa apps is not the MVC as it is defined in the text books. There are many variations of MVC employed by different frameworks. The MVC employed by tools with visual designers are heavily influenced by their visual designer implementation. With XCode you have story boards and nibs. The cocoa libraries and the way concerns are separated are influenced by this. If you want to take advantage of these tools, I would recommend understanding how concerns are separated by Xcode and work within this approach. Your code will coexist with it more smoothly. Apple documentation will help with this.
That being said, MVC is about separation of concerns. Separating concerns is hugely important in designing and maintaining software. Separating concerns properly can reduce dependency, reduce cyclomatic complexity, and make your code much more testable and maintainable. I think it is good that you are paying attention to this and whatever way you structure MVC should look to the reason why you are separating concerns as the guide to implementation.
Related
I have a view that I may use in any number of applications. It's a special viewer for a kind of data type. It contains a special reader for files that pertain to this data type and it can write them. What are the pros and cons of doing it this way? In a recent project, the MVVM proponents argued the view must be "dumb". This makes no sense because how can it be dumb if it is a narrowly specialized viewer? Is it possible that MVVM comes from the web world where viewers are simple? Anyway, the MVVM proponents also believed any data that goes into a view must be conditioned first e.g. converted to HTML, if the view is a webview. Seems like overkill. Why do that?
The concept of MVVM is to separate business logic (model) from view. In your case the reader writer should be in the model code. The Pro is that if you at any point want to make changes to the view side you can do so without changing or moving around code that does the actual data exchange (read write).
It also means that you can write tests against your model and if you change your view the model and test code will be left untouched.
Con with MVVM is that it adds some extra layer of code, it can add some development time (at least when one is new to MVVM) and in the beginning one may feel a bit locked by follow a pattern.
In the end I usually find the Pros to be bigger. One get a good and well thought through Design, separation of concerns for the codebase, easy to test different parts and the day you get a request for modifying or extending the control it will be much easier.
I've been reading a lot of blogs which advocate the fat models and skinny controllers approach, esp. the Rails camp. As a result the routers is basically just figuring out what method to call on what controller and all the controller method does is call the corresponding method on the model and then bring up the view. So I've two concerns here which I don't understand:
The controller and router are really not doing much different tasks other than just calling a method on the God-like model based on the route.
Models are doing too much. Sending emails, creating relationships, deleting and modifying other models, queuing tasks, etc. Basically now you have God-like objects that are supposed to do everything that may or may not concern with modeling and dealing with data.
Where do you draw the line? Isn't this just falling into the God pattern?
It might not be the best idea to look at Rails as a staple of MVC design pattern. Said framework was made with some inherent shortcomings (I kinda elaborated on it in a different post) and the community only just now has begun addressing the fallout. You could look at DataMapper2 development as the first major step.
Some theory
People giving that advice seem to be afflicted by a quite common misconception. So let me begin by clearing it up: Model, in modern MVC design pattern, is NOT a class or object. Model is a layer.
The core idea behind MVC pattern is Separation of Concerns and the first step in it is the division between presentation layer and model layers. Just like the presentation layer breaks down into controllers (instances, responsible for dealing with user input), views (instances, responsible for UI logic) and templates/layouts, so does the model layer.
The major parts that the model layer consists of are:
Domain Objects
Also known as domain entities, business objects, or model objects (I dislike that latter name because it just adds to the confusion). These structures are what people usually mistakenly call "models". They are responsible for containing business rules (all the math and validation for specific unit of domain logic).
Storage Abstractions:
Usually implemented using data mapper pattern (do not confuse with ORMs, which have abused this name). These instances usually are tasked with information storage-from and retrieval-into the domain objects. Each domain object can have several mappers, just like there are several forms of storage (DB, cache, session, cookies, /dev/null).
Services:
Structures responsible for application logic (that is, interaction between domain objects and interaction between domain objects and storage abstractions). They should act like the "interface" through which the presentation layer interacts with the model layer. This is usually what in Rails-like code ends up in the controllers.
There are also several structures that might be in the spaces between these groups: DAOs, units of work and repositories.
Oh ... and when we talk (in context of web) about a user that interacts with MVC application, it is not a human being. The "user" is actually your web browser.
So what about deities?
Instead of having some scary and monolithic model to work with, controllers should interact with services. You pass data from user input to a specific service (for example MailService or RecognitionService). This way the controller changes the state of model layer, but it is done by using a clear API and without messing with internal structures (which would cause a leaky abstraction).
Such changes can either cause some immediate reaction, or only affect the data that the view instance requests from model layer, or both.
Each service can interact with any number (though, it's usually only a handful) of domain object and storage abstractions. For example, the RecogitionService could not care less about storage abstractions for the articles.
Closing notes
This way you get an application that can be unit-tested at any level, has low coupling (if correctly implemented) and has clearly understandable architecture.
Though, keep in mind: MVC is not meant for small applications. If you are writing a guestbook page using MVC pattern, you are doing it wrong. This pattern is meant for enforcing law and order on large scale applications.
For people who are using PHP as primary language, this post might be relevant. It's a bit longer description of the model layer with a few snippets of code.
If the "model" classes are implemented poorly yes, your concern is relevant.
A model class shouldnt be doing Email (infrastructure tasks).
The real question is what does model in MVC imply.
It isnt restricted to POCO classes with a few methods.
Model in MVC means Data and Business logic. Treat it as a superset of classic core POCO models.
View ==== Controller ==== Model ---> Business Process layer --> Core models
Throw in Infrastructure assemblies and Data Access layers and use injection to hand that into the BPL then your a process is using MVC as intended.
BPL may invoke UoW / Respository patterns, and execute business rules and call Infrastructure features by way of injected Objects or interface patters.
So the recommendation to keep a controller skinny doesnt mean the "person" class in a classic Core model should have 50 methods, and call Email directly. You are right to think this is wrong.
The Controller May still be required to instantiate and inject Infrastructure classes into the BPL or core layer if called directly. There should be a business layer or at least classes orchestrating calls across Classic Object model classes.
Well thats my "view" anyway ;-)
For generic take on MVC the wiki description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller
A Little Blog that talks about the "M" in MVC. http://www.thedeveloperday.com/skinny-controllers/
I think you can make a distinction between a single fat model (possibly named App or Application), and several fat models broken down into logical groups (Business, Customer, Order, Message). The latter is how I structure my apps, and each model roughly corresponds to a database table in a relational database or collection in a document database. These models handle all aspects of creating, updating, and manipulating the data that makes up the model, whether it is talking to the database or calling an API. The controller is very thinm responsible for little mor that calling the appropriate model and selecting a template.
Other than the “philosophical” aspects of it, is it a bad idea to have my controller also be my model?
It seems to save some programming time. I don’t have to create logic between the controller and the model, since it’s the same thing. And I can directly interact with the view.
What’s the point of separating the M and the C? Is modularity — that is, the ability to swap one model and controller set for another — the only reason to separate them? It seems to me that “swapping” modules out happens a lot less than (for example) having to update both the model and the controller because something in the model is changing.
It seems odd that a simple calculator, according to the MVC concept, should have both a controller and a view for its settings (like default settings, or something). I know this is a simple example, but it seems to apply to all cases (except maybe frameworks).
The primary reason is for reusability of code. If you’re only ever going to write one program in your professional life, then perhaps it doesn’t matter. If you plan to make a career of it, having reusable pieces is valuable. Well-designed model, controller and view classes are very easy to drop into other programs. I do this all the time.
Consider UITableViewController, which is a Controller. Now imagine if it were designed exclusively to handle music tracks (the Model), and you needed to create a completely different table-management class when you wanted to handle something else. Avoiding this nightmare is why MVC is heavily used in Cocoa.
There are other ways to split things up. Some languages subclass heavily rather than delegating. But in Cocoa, the primary means of splitting up programs is MVC, and it works very well.
EDIT: Just some more reasons from the world of developing commercial apps.
Memory handling is much easier in MVC. You can hold on to your model objects and throw away your view objects (and many of your controller objects) when they go offscreen.
It’s easier to serialize model objects that aren’t wrapped up with controllers and views, and it’s much easier to display the same data in multiple ways. Even in a “simple” text editor, you may want to be able to do split-screen, or have multiple windows showing the same document. In MVC that’s very easy.
If you need no flexibility now or in the future, you don’t need much architecture. But most real projects aren’t so simple. MVC grew out of Xerox’s experience with writing large programs and the difficulties encountered when everything was thrown together.
EDIT 2: I was looking at your earlier edit: “It seems odd that a simple calculator, according to the MVC concept, should have both a controller and a view for its settings (like default settings, or something).”
This is exactly the reason for MVC. It would seem crazy to have to re-code all of the things required for saving user settings specially for a Calculator app. You’d want a generic “please save these user settings” that was completely separate from the UI and that you could reuse. On OS X it’s called NSUserDefaults, and the Calculator app stores its configuration in exactly this way.
MVC is a standard pattern that is well understood in the development community, and for good reasons. The separation really makes things easy to read, easy to troubleshoot, easy to find, and easy to test, as individual components, each with its own area of responsibility.
Do you have to use it? of course not. But keeping the parts separate is generally considered a good idea.
The controller knows how to link a specific view to your model. The separation of model and controller, apart from improving documentation and maintainability, has the immediate benefit of allowing multiple views to display the same information from the model without adding any complexity to either.
That applies not just to multiple views in the same application, but also to the multiple variations in views you'll have across multiple versions of your application. Your model is insulated and logically clean.
Combining model and controller is a classic false economy in my opinion. It may feel like it saves a few minutes, but it costs significantly as an application develops and grows.
If it works for you then it works. Period. The reason for separation of Models, Views, and Controllers revolves around the idea that most development for enterprise applications is done by a team of developers.
Imagine 10 developers trying to work on your controller. But all they want to do is add something to the model. Now your Controller broke? What did they do?
The Models are usually separate components which can be re-used between Controllers. If you are absolutely certain you won't be re-using Models in multiple Controller, I don't really see a problem with blending these concerns.
I guess one could argue why even use MVC design if you are planning on deviating. Maybe there is a more suitable pattern to follow for your situation. Can you give us an example of something you've done where the Controller is the Model? It would help us understand what you are trying to do better.
MVC is all about management (separation of data, representation and business logic). So it's like this: if you run a small company, having a MS-sized management would be a real drag. But if you are a giant corporation, not having big middle management is impossible.
Honestly, in most of my college progamming assignments, I combined the models and controllers, because I didn't see the need for the separation. But working on big projects? The deficiency would be pretty obvious if you try to not separate. Just do what you feel right.
The model depends on neither the view nor the controller. This is one the key benefits of the separation. This separation allows the model to be built and tested independent of the visual presentation.
I have an established web application built as an ASP.NET 3.5 Web App. We recently modified it to mix MVC into the app for some new functionality.
Now that it's in there, we want to leverage MVC wherever possible to begin to "transform" the app from clunky webforms to a more maintainable and testable MVC app.
The question that just came up in adding some new functionality is what controller should be responsible for a certain action.
Let me be more detailed.
The scenario involves at least three major conceptual areas in our app. The app needs to be able to set their PREFERENCE for a default MAP view while they are on a SEARCH screen. Preferences, Maps and Search are all major concepts in our system. Furthermore, this preference setting (basically, where should the map start out) may be used to set the initial map in more than one search page (it's basically a search preference).
The existing MVC controller in the app is a MAPCONTROLLER, with 3 actions that are responsible for generating HTML or JSON data to put on a map.
What we need to do now, is add an MVC route (controller + action) to allow the client view to save some information as their preference. Basically, whenever they are on the search page looking at a map, they can click a button that says "remember this as my default map view", and from then on, their map will always start with that view.
My question is (and I apologize, but I wanted to be very very clear, I see too many questions with no context to help). What should my controller represent? I obviously have 3 major system areas involved. Would it be proper to create a new SEARCH or PREFERENCES controller with a SaveDefaultMapView action (no view required), or piggyback on the xisting MAP controller, even though this new function is more about search and preferences than actual map generation? Should an MVC controller be aligned mostly with the screen (search page/search subsystem), the domain / data being manipulated (preferences), or the very specific visual element under scrutiny at the time the action is taken (the map)?
All of the examples and bootcamp projects are all well and good, but they are far too clean and simplified to apply to a huge legacy app. How does one design their MVC components around a system that incorporates many domain concerns into a single webpage?
Thanks all!
There are no hard and fast rules for how the controllers are organized. You organize them the way it makes most logical sense to you. This will require a bit of experimentation as you see how the routing works out, and you find the cleanest, most elegant design.
ASP.NET MVC is brilliantly agnostic in this respect. It doesn't care how you design your controller/route substructure, and it is flexible enough to handle most any design.
Your application design should be heavy on the Model side. Your controllers should be relatively small; if you find that you are stuffing a large amount of logic in the controllers, you should refactor that logic to the model, or add a service layer to contain the logic. Your controller layer is best thought of as a "patch panel"; it is the place where you connect your incoming Urls via routes to your model/service layer and your View Model/Views.
You should definitely check out Project Areas, as this might be an appropriate mechanism to contain your three different system areas.
Thanks, Robert.
I guess I could rephrase a bit...what guidelines have others found to be useful for keeping their controller responsibilities organized and logical?
While my example above only touches 3 of our areas, I expect to eventually replace most/all of the application with MVC.
Furthermore, each of the 3 areas I mentioned has relationships to multiple other areas.(eg, maps can be used to plot several location-based entities, preferences can apply to any area of the system, and, like maps, is capable of searching for several kinds of business entities (one at a time, not all together).
So the lines are blurry. I'm interested in hearing how others have found workable guidelines for controller organization.
Oh, and at the very least, we are sticking to the skinny controller/fat model paradigm!
I just cannot seem to get my head around what exactly is the MODEL in MVP.
If I have a layered architecture PRESENTATION / APPLICATION / DOMAIN / INFRASTRUCTURE, what exactly is the MODEL?
DOMAIN objects accessed through
lower layers?
A separate object defined in the
PRESENTATION layer that maps to the
UI and uses data obtained from a
lower layer?
If someone could clear my understanding on what is the MODEL it would be greatly appreciated.
The Model is normally the group of classes/types/components that represent the core domain (business or otherwise) that your application operates within. These are the classes that perform the key logic required, often in the form of business rules, and also consume/manipulate data.
In your layered example, the Model would mostly be found in the Domain layer but could also be in the Application layer.
I think you're having difficulty understanding it because you are trying to combine two separate architectural patterns, or ways of looking at the application, being n-tier/n-layer versus MVP.
It's completely reasonable (and quite common) to use some sort of Model/View approach while at the same time applying layering in your application.
Maybe you should focus on them one at a time to start with and then overlay them when you are more familiar with both.
In any of the Model-View-* architectures, the Model is what describes the data in your application (and, if they fit the need, are passed in to the View for rendering).
If your application already has Domain objects, it very well may be the case that you could use them for your Model.
It doesn't matter what architectural guidelines you're following, M is always going to be the same thing. The Model is the piece that is specific to your domain. It's the part that really is what you're application is trying to do. The Model is supposed to represent your business domain. This goes for MVP, MVC, MVVM, etc.
If you were making a inventory system, then an Inventory class would most likely be in your Model, a Product would probably be there, an Order, you get the idea. These are the things that compose your domain logic.
The model is the data. This might just be data out of a database in DataSets, or it might be a complete domain model with objects representing your field of business.
The view is the UI, whether web pages or a Windows application or a mobile device application.
The presenter is the glue between the two and the brains of the whole outfit. Actions initiated by the view take place in the presenter. Generally in a WinForms application, for instance, a Button.Click event in my View simply calls a method on the Presenter, which then takes whatever action is necessary (and it may just be doing something back in the View).
The presenter holds a reference to the view (through an interface), and to the model. The view has a reference to the presenter (usually I strongly-type this, but it can be an interface as well). The model doesn't know about the presenter or the view.